Dumas v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Dumas v. State

1926 OK CR 245, 246 P. 644, 34 Okla. Crim. 337, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 200

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 29, 1926

DocketNo. A-5515.

StatusPublished

This text of 1926 OK CR 245 (Dumas v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dumas v. State, 1926 OK CR 245, 246 P. 644, 34 Okla. Crim. 337, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 200 (Okla. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted In the county court of Carter county on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to violate the prohibitory liquor law, and sentenced to confinement in the county jail for a period of 30 days and to pay a fine of $50.

The evidence discloses that at the time charged a deputy sheriff detected the defendant and his brother on the highway in an automobile. The brother went into the brush from the side of the road and returned with a tow sack containing three half-gallon jars. As the officer approached, defendant ordered his brother to break the jars, which he did. The officer thereupon arrested the parties, and defendant told the officer that the whisky was his, and his brother had nothing to do with it. The defendant testified that he *338 had stopped the car to fix a tire, and that either he or his brother discovered the whisky concealed, and were intending to take it away with them. The brother was acquitted. The contention is made that the evidence is insufficient. The evidence is brief, but it is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

The case is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted In the county court of Carter county on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to violate the prohibitory liquor law, and sentenced to confinement in the county jail for a period of 30 days and to pay a fine of $50.

The evidence discloses that at the time charged a deputy sheriff detected the defendant and his brother on the highway in an automobile. The brother went into the brush from the side of the road and returned with a tow sack containing three half-gallon jars. As the officer approached, defendant ordered his brother to break the jars, which he did. The officer thereupon arrested the parties, and defendant told the officer that the whisky was his, and his brother had nothing to do with it. The defendant testified that he *338 had stopped the car to fix a tire, and that either he or his brother discovered the whisky concealed, and were intending to take it away with them. The brother was acquitted. The contention is made that the evidence is insufficient. The evidence is brief, but it is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

The case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1926 OK CR 245, 246 P. 644, 34 Okla. Crim. 337, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dumas-v-state-oklacrimapp-1926.